Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our Agreement with the Department of War

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 306 posts

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#181

Post by mvdtnz »

tfehring wrote: post #117

> For intelligence activities, any handling of private information will comply with the Fourth Amendment, the National Security Act of 1947 and the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act of 1978, Executive Order 12333, and applicable DoD directives requiring a defined foreign intelligence purpose. The AI System shall not be used for unconstrained monitoring of U.S. persons’ private information as consistent with t…

As a non-US person I take absolutely no solace in sama's statement (even if I believed a single word that snake has ever uttered, which I do not).

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#182

Post by mvdtnz »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #163
tombert wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just changed last night and honestly I can't tell much of a difference. I'm not really complaining, it seems fine, but I'm not seeing the "way better" part that people keep saying.

It's not sycophantic and has a much better "voice."

It definitely is sycophantic, but uses A LOT less emoji, lists and header-paragraph-header structure.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#183

Post by layer8 »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #163
tombert wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just changed last night and honestly I can't tell much of a difference. I'm not really complaining, it seems fine, but I'm not seeing the "way better" part that people keep saying.

It's not sycophantic and has a much better "voice."

Not that I’m a friend of OpenAI, but ChatGPT has relatively fine-grained “personalization” options, and it was never sycophantic with the “efficient” tone for me. Rather the opposite, sometimes it seemed slightly indignant when I criticized it.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#184

Post by layer8 »

caidan wrote: post #45

How incredibly unsurprising. This is why it is pointless to make moral stands as employees when you do not ultimately have power over the companies decisions. The only power you have is to quit. I wonder how many will do so, and how many will simply accept Sam’s AI written rationalization as this own and keep collecting their obscene pay packages…

The OpenAI employees had the power to have Sam Altman reinstated when he was ousted by the board two years ago.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#185

Post by tapoxi »

shikon7 wrote: post #158
kivle wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws that can be changed on a whim by "executive orders", or laws that apparently can be ignored completely, like international law.

No, executive orders can't change law and international law, unless ratified by congress, is not democratically legitimized and applicable law in the US to begin with

We just started a war with Iran without congressional approval or briefing, so I'm not sure if law has meaning anymore.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#186

Post by layer8 »

maniacwhat wrote: post #164

Hold on, isn't the government subject to the law anyway? So a contract saying "they can only do x and y when it is legal", is not really any different to a contract without the legal clause. I.e. "they can do x and y".

I suppose it means they can refuse service on contractual grounds instead of having to sue the government for illegal actions after the fact.

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#187

Post by godelski »

kivle wrote: post #154
_alternator_ wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what it says: the only restrictions are the restrictions that are already in law. This seems like the weasel language Dario was talking about.

Laws that can be changed on a whim by "executive orders", or laws that apparently can be ignored completely, like international law.

Like by an administration who is constantly ignoring and violating both domestic and international law?

Like by an administration that likes to act extra judiciously and ignore habeas corups?

I wonder where we'd find such a government. Probably shouldn't give them the power to "do anything legal NOR 'consistent with operational requirements'". That's the power to do anything they want

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#189

Post by Allower »

Buttons840 wrote: post #101

I don't think Anthropic is a saint that will never do anything unethical. I don't think ChatGPT is any better or worse. But I do think my cancelling ChatGPT so I can try Claude, at this time, sends the message I want to send, which is why I did it.

[dead]

Re: Our Agreement with the Department of War

#190

Post by godelski »

bertil wrote: post #49
piker wrote: post #10

> The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols. The AI System will not be used to independently direct autonomous weapons in any case where law, regulation, or Department policy requires human control , nor will it be used to assume other high-stakes decisions that require approval by…

Can their solution recommend to shoot at combatants lost at sea? This is key because it's the textbook example of a war crime. It's also something that the current administration has bragged doing dozens of times. More succinctly: who decides what is legal here? OpenAI, the Secretary of Defense, or a judge?

  > More succinctly: who decides what is legal here?
Why are people concentrating on legality? Look at the language

  | The Department of War may use the AI System for all lawful purposes, consistent with applicable law, operational requirements, and well-established safety and oversight protocols.
It's not just "legal". Their usage just needs to be consistent with one of

  - legal
  - operational requirements
  - "well-established safety and oversight protocols"
Operational requirements might just be a free pass to do whatever they want. The well established protocols seems like a distraction from the second condition.

  > who decides what is [consistent with operational requirements] here?
The Secretary of Defense. The same person who has directed people to do extrajudicial killings. Killings that would be war crimes even if those people were enemy combatants.

There's also subtle language elsewhere. Notice the word "domestic" shows up between "mass" and "surveillance"? We already have another agency that's exploited that one...

Post reply on HN